Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1954 (4) TMI 43

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... essee was assessed to tax on his turnover of the purchases of groundnut effected by him during January, 1952. The assessee claimed that the turnover was not taxable as the purchases had been made by him from persons who had themselves grown the ground- nut on their lands. There was no occasion to verify if that claim was correct as a fact. The Department and the Tribunal negatived the claim of the assessee on the ground, that what was excluded from the taxable turnover by section 2(i) of the Sales Tax Act was only the proceeds of sale of agricultural produce grown by the dealer himself. The Tribunal held: "What the definition accordingly contemplates is that where a dealer who carries on business of buying or selling goods, also sells his .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and "his turnover" in that context can only refer to the dealer's turnover. For easy reference, the portion of section 2(i) relevant for our present purpose can be set out thus: "'Turnover' means the aggregate amount for which goods are either bought by or sold by a dealer......... provided that the proceeds of the sale by a person of agricultural or horticultural produce grown by himself or grown on any land in which he has an interest.........shall be excluded from his turnover." The pronouns "himself", "he" and "his" in the proviso to section 2(i) obviously all refer to "a person" as mentioned in the proviso to section 2(i), i.e., the person who sells the produce grown by himself or grown on any land in which he has an interest. We ha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... orticultural produce on his own land or on any land in which he has an interest, whether as owner, usufructuary mortgagee, tenant or otherwise) are not within the scope of section 2(i), unless the producer is also a dealer. A producer who is not a dealer is obviously not within the scope of section 2(i). Let us take the case of a sale of groundnut by a producer who is not a dealer. There can be no question of the seller's "turnover" in such a case, because the seller is not a dealer. There can, therefore, be no question of any need for a statutory exclusion from a turnover, the seller's turnover, where there is no turnover at all, that is, a turnover to be taken into account for purposes of bringing it within the charging section, section 3 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he section as: "'Turnover' means the aggregate amount for which goods are either bought or sold by a dealer provided that the proceeds of the sale by any person to such a dealer of agricultural or horticultural produce grown by himself or grown on any land in which he has an interest shall be excluded from such dealer's turnover." It should be sufficient to set out these two interpretations in juxta- position to realise that it is the earlier construction that should prevail. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the scheme of taxa- tion underlying the Act was to exempt from taxation the first sale of agricultural produce and with it this first purchase. It is not, of course, permissible to refer to any policy underlying an Act to c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e petition we dismissed in T.R.C. No. 205 of 1953. That decision covers the question raised in these petitions also, and these petitions are dismissed, but without costs. C.M.P. 7170 to 7174 of 1953: These petitions are dismissed, but without costs. T.R.C. Nos. 310 to 314 of 1953: The assessee is the same in all these petitions. The question raised in these petitions is covered by our decision in T.R.C. No. 205 of 1953. These petitions are dismissed with costs in one T.R.C. No. 310 of 1953-Rs. 250. T.R.C. Nos. 299, 301, 302 and 307 of 1953: The assessee in all these petitions is the same, and the question raised in these petitions is covered by our decision in T.R.C. No. 205 of 1953. These petitions are dismissed with costs in one T.R.C. No .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates